(Original post by T-Toe)
I mean't logic's origin. Creativity isn't always needed because creativity has helped to explain logic. I'll give an example. Numbers were created and aligned in consecutive order. The use of numbers has helped to explain the principle of logic.

Obviously my intelligence is below par - I didn't understand that

What d'you mean by the principle of logic?

p.s. I think we've got into a quoting cross-over, I'll go to sleep and reply tomorrow

(Original post by Rennit)
IQ tests are a horrendous measure of Intelligence. I'd say there is an element of strong proportionality to AS and A level results, although intelligence as a whole cannot be tested.

(Original post by Architecture-er)
Hmm, I'd disagree that logic derives from creativity. If we assume there's a perfect answer to a problem (in my case, it'd be how to design a building) then logic will help us reach a more ideal solution, the degree of success being dependent on how good my problem solving and logical thinking is.

But I wouldn't necessarily say that I was being creative - I think creativity is used to arrive at a solution without many restrictions, whereas logic is used to arrive at a solution despite a lot of restrictions.

For example, art is creative whereas an F1 car is logical. Though, in the case of invention, I think the process is kick-started by creativity, but then logic takes over when a problem is identified. Obviously there are shades of grey here.. this would be quite interesting to debate

I totally disagree

Solving problems such as minimising drag on an F1 car or making the most efficient use of space in building requires creativility, the conclusion is logical but to get there requires creative thought or else engineers and architects would just be replaced by software.

(Original post by T-Toe)
My personal definition is simply: 'How good you are at achieving a particular task'.

Well, you wouldn't call a sprinter intelligent because he is able to run the 100 metre in 10 seconds.

My definition would incorporate 2 things: adaptability and prediction. The ability to change to exploit the best of a new situation, and going down to a deeper level I'd say that prediction is at the heart of intelligence.

For instance, knowing whether this approach to solving a particular integral will be successful, whether your boss is going to appreciate your comments at the next company meeting, whether the markets are going to go up and the new stock you've purchased is going to appreciate in value .All these things, one would typically associate with intelligence, are connected to making successful predictions of the future.

Now of course some can become good at predicting things by hard work and dedication. You can learn after several years that the right approach to solving an integral is to do x- but nobody would say that hard work is necessarily intelligence. That is why I'd also incorporate an aspect of adaptability, being able to make successful predictions and make the most of novel and relatively unseen environments.

(Original post by Blutooth)
Well, you wouldn't call a sprinter intelligent because he is able to run the 100 metre in 10 seconds.

My definition would incorporate 2 things: adaptability and prediction. The ability to change to exploit the best of a new situation, and going down to a deeper level I'd say that prediction is at the heart of intelligence.

For instance, knowing whether this approach to solving a particular integral will be successful, whether your boss is going to appreciate your comments at the next company meeting, whether the markets are going to go up and the new stock you've purchased is going to appreciate in value .All these things, one would typically associate with intelligence, are connected to making successful predictions of the future.

Now of course some can become good at predicting things by hard work and dedication. You can learn after several years that the right approach to solving an integral is to do x- but nobody would say that hard work is necessarily intelligence. That is why I'd also incorporate an aspect of adaptability, being able to make successful predictions and make the most of novel and relatively unseen environments.

How about the mental ability to train and push yourself to be the best?
Good definitions nonetheless.

(Original post by T-Toe)
How about the mental ability to train and push yourself to be the best?
Good definitions nonetheless.

Not sure if I completely understand you, but yeah through hard work I think you can become a bit more intelligent. It takes a lot of hard work though. Say someone spent a day analysing poetry, he may have learnt a great deal about Tennyson or Byron but that won't necessarily mean he'll be smarter. However, there will doubtless be some incrementally small change to his intelligence. He'll know about poems from a particular era and be able to apply that knowledge to the next few poems he sees. He'll also have picked up some new vocab/ mannerisms which could be used to impress people he meets. But understandably, this would correlate to a very small increase in intelligence.

Alternatively, someone may be a mathematical scholar, and through him having acquired some numerical skills he might be better at solving logical problems of all kinds in many disciplines: engineering to technology to timetabling etc. And generally, I'd probably think that time spent learning mathematics is more likely to improve your intelligence in a broader field than time spent studying english. But I'm sure others will doubtless disagree.

The brain is a very plastic, mutable thing, and often a false dichotomy is assumed between knowledge and intelligence. They say that intelligence is a lot like the hardware and knowledge, the stuff you pick up is like the software. But of course, when you work hard and learn something new, this changes the way neurones are configured in the brain and alters the state of the hardware, if you will. No one will deny that an adult is more intelligent than a child, and that's not just because the brain has got bigger but also because of the knowledge acquired.

And how many scientists and mathematicians have IQs around the 110 or 120 mark? If you took the average Oxbridge IQ, i'd bet it'd be something around 115. This is only considered slightly above average. IQ certainly isn't a good enough measure for IQ, at best I'd say its around 60% accurate.

(Original post by Rennit)
And how many scientists and mathematicians have IQs around the 110 or 120 mark? If you took the average Oxbridge IQ, i'd bet it'd be something around 115. This is only considered slightly above average. IQ certainly isn't a good enough measure for IQ, at best I'd say its around 60% accurate.

Actually for scientists it was around 130, and for mathmos around 132 at Cambridge. I think for humanities it was nearer 126.

In my novel, I gave my definition of intelligence as Intelligence has been defined in many different ways, including the abilities, but not limited to, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, reasoning, learning, having emotional knowledge, retaining, planning, and problem solving.

a person who is really good at maths is intelligent.a person who is really good at something not academic e.g debating or music is intelligent.
a person who is really good at persuading people is also intelligent.

therefore, i think it is safe to conclude that a person who is really good at something is intelligent.

So if I got really good at playing the piano my intelligence would increase?

Intelligence is a natural ability, it is the opposite of a stupid person. Note that a stupid need not know anything, but rather not know why the know what they know. An intelligent person, knows why they know what they know and why it is important to know it. Wisdom comes from experience in life, and the application of their intelligence. A wise person can't be stupid.

(Original post by Fuzzy12345)
For me intelligence is the ability to be able to pick up and understand information quickly and be able to apply it to new situations quickly, tbh IQ tests are the closest to measure intelligence

I would guess that intelligence really consists of an ability to take what is known and derive further information from that.
For example, the composer can take influence from already existing music, and combine it and come up with new ideas, melodies and themes. They can innovate.
Another example would be a physicist. Einstein contemplated the knowledge that the speed of light is fixed, and took it to its logical conclusios to creatively realise relativity.

I'd say that in this way creativity and intelligence are intimately binded.
However, I am inclined to say that creativity is inherently logical. It is easier to see why this is true in the case of Einstein, but with the composer it is more difficult. I think the more 'artisitic' logical process would be to do with making connections. Ah, no, this is fundamental to both types of intelligence.
For example (extremely simplified);
Bright colours -> Happiness
Smiling faces -> Happiness
Therefore, if I paint bright, smiling faces, it will make the viewer feel happy.

You can imagine a much more complex framework between the senses, subjective experiences, moods, etc. A good musician can play in a certain way to invoke certain feelings in the listener because they can understand how these things link to moods. This is intelligence.
It can also go for scientific intelligence. If you can make the link between an apple falling to the ground being related to planetary orbits, then you are intelligent (bearing in mind this wasn't known in the time of Newton). You have a clear framework of connections in your mind and how things relate, and you can percieve how things connect in ways that others do not.